Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34704083›Full record

ArticleThe Lancet regional health. Western Pacific2021

The Epidemiology of COVID-19 in Malaysia.

Vivek Jason Jayaraj, Sanjay Rampal, Chiu-Wan Ng, Diane Woei Quan Chong

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Utilisation of the web-based Home Assessment Tool among patients with COVID-19 in Selangor, Malaysia: An observational study.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2024
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. COVID-19: What we need from epidemiology to help informed policies.The Lancet regional health. Western Pacific · 2021
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Vivek Jason JayarajCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence-based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive, Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Sanjay RampalCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence-based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive, Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Chiu-Wan NgCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence-based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive, Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Diane Woei Quan ChongCentre for Epidemiology and Evidence-based Practice, Department of Social and Preventive, Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Malaya, 50603 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has rapidly spread across the globe. Critical to the control of COVID-19 is the characterisation of its epidemiology. Despite this, there has been a paucity of evidence from many parts of the world, including Malaysia. We aim to describe the epidemiology of COVID-19 in Malaysia to inform prevention and control policies better.

methodsMalaysian COVID-19 data was extracted from 16 March 2020 up to 31 May 2021. We estimated the following epidemiological indicators: 7-day incidence rates, 7-day mortality rates, case fatality rates, test positive ratios, testing rates and the time-varying reproduction number (Rt).

findingsBetween 16 March 2020 and 31 May 2021, Malaysia has reported 571,901 cases and 2,796 deaths. Malaysia's average 7-day incidence rate was 26•6 reported infections per 100,000 population (95% CI: 17•8, 38•1). The average test positive ratio and testing rate were 4•3% (95% CI: 1•6, 10•2) and 0•8 tests per 1,000 population (95% CI: <0•1, 3•7), respectively. The case fatality rates (CFR) was 0•6% (95% CI: <0•1, 3•7). Among the 2,796 cases who died, 87•3% were ≥ 50 years.

interpretationThe public health response was successful in the suppression of COVID-19 transmission or the first half of 2020. However, a state election and outbreaks in institutionalised populations have been the catalyst for more significant community propagation. This rising community transmission has continued in 2021, leading to increased incidence and strained healthcare systems. Calibrating NPI based on epidemiological indicators remain critical for us to live with the virus. (243 words).

fundingThis study is part of the COVID-19 Epidemiological Analysis and Strategies (CEASe) Project with funding from the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (UM.0000245/HGA.GV).

Indexed as

Case fatalityEpidemiologyIncidenceMortalityPublic healthReproductive numberSARS-CoV-2Transmission

Identifiers

PMID34704083
PMCPMC8529946

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.